Tracing the Origins of Coming on the Clouds

[Logos1]

I accept your nom de plume John, Thank you very much! (in my Elvis voice)

I've made the point over and over on this thread, and preterist extrordinaire Logos1 won't even touch it.

So you tell me, how is ten years "soon"?

Given that most scholars would probably say that Revelation was written less than 10 years before 70 AD trying to use a 10 year time frame is a red herring in and of itself—but I think we can safely work with 10 years to prove a point to John since that is the time frame he is comfortable staking his argument on.

If the Old Covenant is about 1500 years old at this point and is going to end in 10 years then its remaining life span is 10/1500 = .007 of its total life span. Only 7 thousandths of its total life span remain before it is over.

From a relative stand point that would be a very short time span.

In the normal use of language 7 one thousandths of something remaining is an extremely short period of its life.

When Rev 1:1 says these things must soon come to pass then inspired scripture has defined soon in this instance and arguing it ain’t soon is to set yourself up above the truth of the Holy Spirit.

In my journey from being a dispy to a total preterist I always sought to find the truth where ever it lead and align my views with scripture and not force my views on scripture. Arguing against the specific words of scripture is the apotheosis of arrogance.

Revelation begins by saying these things must soon come to pass and near the end 22:10 it says don’t seal the prophetic words of this book because the time is near—you can’t wiggle away from the fact that imminence (soon-ness) is being communicated.

Stubbornly mounting your defense on nitpick definitions such as the number of years in “soon” is to willfully blind yourself to the real message being communicated which is imminence.

Even as far back as the baptizing work of John the Baptist he addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees Matt 3:7-10 as a brood of vipers and asked them who warned you to flee from the coming wrath (i.e. the destruction of the temple and the old covenant world of Judaism) and told them even now the ax is ready to strike the root of the trees. Hence 43 years from Jerusalem’s destruction the notion of imminent destruction is being conveyed.

And oh by the way John instead of being insulted by your remarks about my remarks I get a warm fuzzy from them…imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

Thank you so much kind sir.

Preterist extrordinaire Logos1

(I really like the sound of that John--thank you very much--you don't mind if I use it do you?)

 

[John of Japan]

As usual, I'll delete the extraneous material of the very verbose Logos1. I have to say, though, he's cleaned up his act some. I don't see anything in this post that I would call trash talking.

If the Old Covenant is about 1500 years old at this point and is going to end in 10 years then its remaining life span is 10/1500 = .007 of its total life span. Only 7 thousandths of its total life span remain before it is over.

From a relative stand point that would be a very short time span.

In the normal use of language 7 one thousandths of something remaining is an extremely short period of its life.

When Rev 1:1 says these things must soon come to pass then inspired scripture has defined soon in this instance....

For a person who appears to know exactly nothing about semantics (the study of meaning in linguistics) you have made somewhat of a try at it.

For starters, we do not use mathematics in semantics. Your arithmetic is totally meaningless in determining what "soon" means.

The way we determine meaning is by (1) context, and (2) contemporary usage. First of all, concerning context David Alan Black says, "Above all, to know what a word means we must consider its context. Meaning is then extracted from the passage in which the word is found" (Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, p. 122). Your arithmetic had no consideration at all of context.

Secondly, we look at contemporary usage to determine the meaning of a word. That is, we consider how the word is used in the culture which is contemporary to the text in which we find the word. This is a part of descriptive (or synchronic) linguistics, "in which language is viewed as it exists at some particular point in time" (ibid, 5). Your arithmetic also completely ignored this.

So where are we left? You have tried to invent your own method of semantics. In order for your effort to be successful, you have to convince us of the semantic logic of your method. How did you arrive at the "arithmetic method" of semantics? Are there any scholars who teach it? No? I thought not. You invented it out of whole cloth to try to prove your point, and it has no reference to the world of real linguistics.

You are still left with trying to prove that "soon" can mean ten years, which it never can. Ergo, preterism has a time statement problem. But I'm glad that after all the times I've put this point forward you finally interacted with it.

Revelation begins by saying these things must soon come to pass and near the end 22:10 it says don’t seal the prophetic words of this book because the time is near—you can’t wiggle away from the fact that imminence (soon-ness) is being communicated.

Stubbornly mounting your defense on nitpick definitions such as the number of years in “soon” is to willfully blind yourself to the real message being communicated which is imminence.

Not "nitpik definitions", but real life linguistics. Words mean things, and it is not nitpicking to try to determine the actual meaning of words in the Bible. This is where, IMO, preterism completely fails. Preteriests always object when their opponents deal with actual meaning, like you guys on the BB keep objecting to me using Greek. I do semantics in at least three languages almost every day of my life. You appear to do it never, judging from your arithmetic.

You mix up the meaning of imminent and soon, which are not synonyms. Imminent means something is impending. Something can be imminent and not happen soon. They've been saying for decades that a great earthquake was due in the Kanto region and Mt. Fuji would blow. It has been imminent for almost as long as I've been in Japan, but it certainly has not happened soon.

Even as far back as the baptizing work of John the Baptist he addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees Matt 3:7-10 as a brood of vipers and asked them who warned you to flee from the coming wrath (i.e. the destruction of the temple and the old covenant world of Judaism) and told them even now the ax is ready to strike the root of the trees. Hence 43 years from Jerusalem’s destruction the notion of imminent destruction is being conveyed.

Can you prove this interpretation from the passage? There is nothing in the context of John's statement about the old covenant or about Jerusalem. "A text without a context is a pretext."

Preterist extrordinaire Logos1

(I really like the sound of that John--thank you very much--you don't mind if I use it do you?)

Knock yourself out. Please!

 

[DHK]

Given that most scholars would probably say that Revelation was written less than 10 years before 70 AD trying to use a 10 year time frame is a red herring in and of itself—but I think we can safely work with 10 years to prove a point to John since that is the time frame he is comfortable staking his argument on.

Most scholars? I would like to see these most scholars. You probably can't list more than half a dozen compared to the dozens that John or myself can list that believe it was written after 90 A.D. Why do you say such ridiculous things when you don't have the evidence, nor do you provide it?

 

[DHK]

ok - translate it however you wish

Mat.24:30,31?
It was originally written in Greek.
I quoted it to you in the KJV. That is a translation. The translation speaks for itself. I simply asked you: When have you seen these things come to pass? Can you document these events? And the above is the lame answer you gave.

 

[HisWitness]

Mat.24:30,31?
It was originally written in Greek.
I quoted it to you in the KJV. That is a translation. The translation speaks for itself. I simply asked you: When have you seen these things come to pass? Can you document these events? And the above is the lame answer you gave.

Can YOU disprove any of those things happened? i think not--though i know you will try your best

 

[DHK]

Can YOU disprove any of those things happened? i think not--though i know you will try your best

Stop evading the question.

 

[OldRegular]

In my opinion the discussion of what "soon" or any other time frame in Scripture means is unnecessary. The doctrine of Full Preterism is most clearly refuted by the teaching of Scripture on the resurrection of the body, believers and unbelievers!

 

[DHK]

Can YOU disprove any of those things happened? i think not--though i know you will try your best

If I say the world is 50 trillion years old, can you disprove me. No, you can't.
Your logic is ludicrous.
Did you know there are gods on the planet of Pluto eating green cheese looking on your every action. If you eat green cheese you will please them, and they will give you favor in their sight. You will be blessed and live a happier life. Can you disprove me?

The onus is on you to prove that the events of Mat.24:30,31 happened. If you cannot you have failed, and have borne false witness. To claim something happened without a shred of evidence is dishonest; fraudulent. That is what Jim Jones did. Are you any better? Prove it.

 

[Yeshua1]

[FONT=&quot]Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Shall bruise (suntripsei). Future active of suntribô, old verb, to rub together, to crush, to trample underfoot. Blessed promise of final victory over Satan by "the God of peace." "Shortly" (en tachei). As God counts time. Meanwhile patient loyalty from us. (A.T. Robertson)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Must shortly come to pass (dei genesthai en tachei). Second aorist middle infinitive of ginomai with dei. See this same adjunct (en tachei) in Lu 18:8; Ro 16:20; Re 22:6. It is a relative term to be judged in the light of 2Pe 3:8 according to God's clock, not ours. And yet undoubtedly the hopes of the early Christians looked for a speedy return of the Lord Jesus. (Robertson)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Deuteronomy 4:26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]--that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto you go over Jordan to possess it; though they were now about to go over Jordan and inherit the land of Canaan, yet they would not enjoy it long, but be taken and carried captive out of it; as the ten tribes were by Shalmaneser king of Assyria, and the two tribes by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and both for their idolatry and other crimes. (Gill)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]--Note that the words in Deuteronomy 4 were spoken by Moses. The Exodus (led by Moses), took place in 1440 B.C. Soon after that Judah went into captivity in 586 B.C., or about 800 years later. Now there is a definition of “soon.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jesus said he will come quickly. Paul defined quickly as “in the twinkling of an eye,” which is much faster than blinking an eye. That is quick. But he didn’t put a time frame on it. He simply said it would be quick. Three times Jesus said “I come quickly.” [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are dozens of other examples in the Bible as to the meanings of these words. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I work with the elderly. They come near to the end of their days after ninety or so years and tell us “how quickly” those years have gone by, “what a short time it has been,” and various other expressions. It all depends on the context, and from whose vantage point you are looking from doesn’t it? From God’s vantage point “soon” may be a very long time. [/FONT]

The term "shortly/soon" can also mean that when the events foretold by John to happen in the future, it will be done quickly!

Jesus takes 2000.00 yeras to come back, but when he does, be as in the 'twinkling of an eye!"

 

[Yeshua1]

Most scholars? I would like to see these most scholars. You probably can't list more than half a dozen compared to the dozens that John or myself can list that believe it was written after 90 A.D. Why do you say such ridiculous things when you don't have the evidence, nor do you provide it?

Don't most conservative/Evangelical scholars date revelation to 90-95 though?

 

[DHK]

Don't most conservative/Evangelical scholars date revelation to 90-95 though?

Yes, that is what I was saying. It is the liberals that usually want to deny prophesy that like to try adjust the true date of the writing of the book. I am not labeling anyone here a liberal, but that is just the way it has been. Both Daniel and Isaiah are good examples of that.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, that is what I was saying. It is the liberals that usually want to deny prophesy that like to try adjust the true date of the writing of the book. I am not labeling anyone here a liberal, but that is just the way it has been. Both Daniel and Isaiah are good examples of that.

IF wriiten at that time, Full pretierism goes dead as a dodo!

 

[John of Japan]

Most scholars? I would like to see these most scholars. You probably can't list more than half a dozen compared to the dozens that John or myself can list that believe it was written after 90 A.D. Why do you say such ridiculous things when you don't have the evidence, nor do you provide it?

When he did list several, most of them were old white dead men, without the benefit of 100 or more years of scholarship since they wrote. Full preterism suffers from a conspicuous lack of scholarship.

 

[OldRegular]

IF wriiten at that time, Full pretierism goes dead as a dodo!

I keep hearing that claim. Just what in Revelation refutes Full Preterism?

 

[Logos1]

Most scholars? I would like to see these most scholars. You probably can't list more than half a dozen compared to the dozens that John or myself can list that believe it was written after 90 A.D. Why do you say such ridiculous things when you don't have the evidence, nor do you provide it?

Ah, granted I should clarify that with most scholars of a preterist persuasion today; however, I have seen more than one futurist that will readily admit that all of the bible was written before 70 AD.

If you know anything about the history of views on dating the book of revelation you know it is much more fashionable today to say it was written in 90 AD than it was a few hundred years ago.

Preterist Extraordinairé Logos1.....JOJ

 

[Logos1]

As usual, I'll delete the extraneous material of the very verbose Logos1. I have to say, though, he's cleaned up his act some. I don't see anything in this post that I would call trash talking.

For a person who appears to know exactly nothing about semantics (the study of meaning in linguistics) you have made somewhat of a try at it.

For starters, we do not use mathematics in semantics. Your arithmetic is totally meaningless in determining what "soon" means.

The way we determine meaning is by (1) context, and (2) contemporary usage. First of all, concerning context David Alan Black says, "Above all, to know what a word means we must consider its context. Meaning is then extracted from the passage in which the word is found" (Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, p. 122). Your arithmetic had no consideration at all of context.

Secondly, we look at contemporary usage to determine the meaning of a word. That is, we consider how the word is used in the culture which is contemporary to the text in which we find the word. This is a part of descriptive (or synchronic) linguistics, "in which language is viewed as it exists at some particular point in time" (ibid, 5). Your arithmetic also completely ignored this.

So where are we left? You have tried to invent your own method of semantics. In order for your effort to be successful, you have to convince us of the semantic logic of your method. How did you arrive at the "arithmetic method" of semantics? Are there any scholars who teach it? No? I thought not. You invented it out of whole cloth to try to prove your point, and it has no reference to the world of real linguistics.

You are still left with trying to prove that "soon" can mean ten years, which it never can. Ergo, preterism has a time statement problem. But I'm glad that after all the times I've put this point forward you finally interacted with it.

Not "nitpik definitions", but real life linguistics. Words mean things, and it is not nitpicking to try to determine the actual meaning of words in the Bible. This is where, IMO, preterism completely fails. Preteriests always object when their opponents deal with actual meaning, like you guys on the BB keep objecting to me using Greek. I do semantics in at least three languages almost every day of my life. You appear to do it never, judging from your arithmetic.

You mix up the meaning of imminent and soon, which are not synonyms. Imminent means something is impending. Something can be imminent and not happen soon. They've been saying for decades that a great earthquake was due in the Kanto region and Mt. Fuji would blow. It has been imminent for almost as long as I've been in Japan, but it certainly has not happened soon.
Can you prove this interpretation from the passage? There is nothing in the context of John's statement about the old covenant or about Jerusalem. "A text without a context is a pretext."

Knock yourself out. Please!

My Dearest and truest brother in Christ,

I’m so happy you find my writings free of what you call trash talking—I knew there was a reason I was feeling so good about myself today.

I feel particularly vindicated in my post after reading your response. As always seems the case you failed to provide any scriptural counter-argument to my point (obviously because there isn’t any—so how can I blame you on that score), nor did you try any secular counter-argument, you spent your entire time just trying to discredit me. No offense taken.

Which is the basic old method of trying to discredit the person when you can’t discredit the argument. Granted, your only available tactic here. So it is only fair of me to cut you some slack given your limited options in responding.

You are; however, demonstrating that you live in scriptural denial when you refuse to let the bible do its own interpretation of the word soon, shortly, etc.

When Revelation starts by saying Rev 1:1 “things that must shorty come to pass” and ends with 22:10 “Don’t seal the prophetic words of this book because the time is near” you can’t semantic your way around the fact that all the events in Revelation had to soon come to pass or else Christ who gave the vision to John was lying to him or John was lying in what he wrote.

If only you had the ability to stand back from your musings and read them with independent eyes you would see how strained, how reaching, how awkward you appear in going to such enormous lengths to deny the events in Revelation had to soon take place or else the bible had to be in error.

Another morsel of logic would also easily settle the writing of Revelation pre 70 AD as opposed to afterward is that if it was written before then the events of 70 AD would serve as total fulfillment of the book; however, if it was written in 90 AD nothing has happened since then that could fulfill the prophecies in Revelation. Sometimes the best logic is the most simple logic.

Further proof is provided by the 70 weeks prophecy when it says Dan 7:24 to seal up vision and prophecy. If 70 AD was not the fulfillment of Revelation then why have there been no inspired prophets since that time?

I could go on such as Luke 21:20 – 22 when the specific destruction of Jerusalem is mentioned and this is cited by Christ as the days to fulfill all the things that are written.

All these references point to the 70 AD fulfillment of Revelation.

There is no corresponding scripture anywhere in the bible to point to a time frame after 70 AD for the fulfillment of the events in Revelation.

You may of course scorn me and deny scripture, but you can’t find any scripture references that point to a time beyond 70 AD.

Preterist Extraordinairé Logos1...JOJ

 

[Bronconagurski]

Don't most conservative/Evangelical scholars date revelation to 90-95 though?

Yes, they do. One reason being is the testimony of Iranaeus (2nd century), and then later writers Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus (wrote an early commentary of Revelation), Eusebius and Jerome. They all affirmed that John wrote Revelation near the end of the rule of Emperor Domitian, who reigned from A.D. 81-96.

 

[asterisktom]

Yes, they do. One reason being is the testimony of Iranaeus (2nd century), and then later writers Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus (wrote an early commentary of Revelation), Eusebius and Jerome. They all affirmed that John wrote Revelation near the end of the rule of Emperor Domitian, who reigned from A.D. 81-96.

Partly right on your first main sentence: It was the testimony of Irenaeus alone that later writers based their own "testimonies". And fallible Irenaeus

He may well have been the first to teach the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

He believed that Adam and Eve were created as children, and that the Fall was at least partly to be explained by immaturity and lack of knowledge on the part of Adam and Eve.

He also believed that Eve, though married to Adam, still remained a virgin. This was the reason for Mary's virgin birth. She undid the particular sin of the first woman, just as her Son undid the sin of the first man.

BTW - and I put this in his plus column - he did identify the rider on the white horse (Rev. 6) as Christ.

But he also believed that Jesus was at least 45 when when He died (See his 74th Demonstration).

All of this to say two things:

1. The basis for belief in Revelation being written in the 90s rests solely upon this one man. And that man has demonstrated a notable lack of discernment and (to my mind, at least) untrustworthiness.

2. All of the other supposed co-testifiers to this later date were merely following Irenaeus's decades-earlier blunder.

On the positive side of the ledger, proving why Revelation was written before AD70, we have several other witnesses. But not to make this post any longer, I'll just suggest this earlier post I had made on this very subject:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=76205

There is nothing new under the sun. And there is nothing posted on these boards, I suppose, that does not need to be posted again and again.

 

[John of Japan]

This thread is on p. 20, so it will probably be shut down soon and I want to say something.

First of all, I thank God for the grace to ignore the vitriol that came my way in virtually every single preterist post. The accusations of "whining" when I obeyed Christ by confronting the offender (Matt. 18) were fairly riduculous to me, but God gives grace there too.

Next, I want to thank God for the blessed hope of the appearing of Christ. I have examined carefully and honestly virtually every single Scripture about the 2nd Coming over and over, have honestly researched and taught through many of the prophetic books and passages in either Japanese, English or both, and my faith that Christ is coming in physically and imminently remains strong. I love Him with all that I am and love His appearing (2 Tim. 4:8), and have given my life to serve Him while waiting for Him and praying often "Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Rev. 22:20).

There are so many, many Scriptures about the 2nd coming, the BB cannot contain them all! But the ones about Him coming in the air (yes, flying) are all precious to me. I believe them as is, literally, with no "interpretation" or denial. And they give me peace and hope and help me to seek to live a holy life ("Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."--1 John 3:2-3).

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Matt. 24:30).

"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 26:64).

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory" (Mark 13:26).

"And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:52).

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:17).

"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen" (Rev. 1:7).

 

[OldRegular]

John,

You and I may disagree on the particular events related to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, I take the amillennial view, but I believe, and I believe Scripture teaches most clearly, that Jesus Christ will return in the full Glory of the Godhead, there will be a resurrection of all the dead followed by the White Throne Judgment, and all the redeemed of God shall live throughout eternity in the New Heavens and New Earth. For the believer Scripture says it well:

Titus 2:13. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Revelation 21:1-7
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2* And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3* And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4* And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5* And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6* And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7* He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

That glorious appearing has not happened yet. God had the Scripture written for all His redeemed throughout time, not some of it just for those who lived prior to the destruction of Jerusalem!